--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of the folks I know who want 'more proof' or a > 'UN-sanctioned international coalition' before war > is > declared think Saddam is a monster who ought to have > a > bullet through his head - so they are not giving him > any 'benefit' WRT his heinous crimes and his basic > unfitness to be a nation's leader.
But it's interesting, isn't it, that this doesn't seem to excite them at all. I live in New York, I saw the protests, and I read plenty of stuff the anti-war people put out. They don't put any effort into condemning Saddam, and it clearly doesn't excite them at all. The perceived sins of the US - that excites them, that they'll get energized about. But genocide, torture, mass murder - condemning that (if they do it at all, and quite often they don't) that's nothing more than an empty ritual. > Why equate "war protester" with "pro-Saddam?!" - > again, the vast majority of those I know who > "protest > the war" do so _because they think an international > coalition ought to be made_ to prosecute it (OK, one > that involves the UN), not b/c they think SH is > anything other than a slime-ball. But that's a fantasy, and we know it's a fantasy, so it's equivalent to saying they want Mahatma Gandhi to get up out of his grave and give the war its blessing. First, the argument that the agreement of dictatorial China, amoral France, and well, whatever the hell Russia is right now, gives some sort of moral stamp to overthrowing someone like Hussein is absurd. Second, the national interests of France (as the French government currently interprets them) mean that we aren't going to get that - so why, instead of protesting the US, aren't there hundreds of thousands of people burning French flags for supporting someone like Hussein? It's not like this is an aberration - they've been doing it for decades. So why isn't that getting people excited? Again, it's suggestive. You can say "this ought to happen" or "that ought to happen" as much as you want. They are not, in fact, going to happen. One of the markers of sanity is seeing the world as it actually is, not as you wish it were. So this is the world as it is. Countries are self-interested. Some of them perceive their self-interest as protecting Saddam. The US thinks its self-interest is in overthrowing Saddam. Overthrowing Saddam would be A Good Thing. The moral thing. So American interests (as they often are) are in consonance with the demands of abstract morality, and French interests (among others) are opposed to that morality. But it's the _US_ people are protesting? What does that tell you? > I am genuinely puzzled by the "but turn a blind eye > > to the vastly larger faults of those who oppose > her," > Gautam, because I really don't know *anyone* who > thinks that way. I am certainly among those _who > expect America to hold to a higher moral standard_ > because - well, because we're *supposed* to be > morally > superior to the nasty dictators of the world! Part > of > my dismay at the way this Administration has handled > policy is that it *is not* behaving in what I > consider > a "grown-up" way, a sensible way, a way which > considers the importance of America's world image, a > way which acknowledges that 'reforming Iraq' will be > a > difficult task with uncertain choices. Instead they > *treat American citizens as too stupid to > understand* > what's going on (or else undeserving of knowledge of > the uncertainties ahead). To borrow a hip-hop term > (I > think :}), they are dissing not only allies and > friends, but the American public. > > Why is this important? Because a sheriff, in the > idealized Old West, is not only supposed to pack a > gun > and shoot well, but be honest and open: "It's gonna > be > a heck of a fight, and it'll mean each an' ev'ry one > of you has to help; some of you will die. I said I > was gonna help fix the livery stable an' improve the > school an' get a clinic goin', but those things are > gonna have to wait until this pack of bandits is > dead > or jailed..." [IOW, promising to cut taxes _and_ > spend more on prescription drugs _and_ prosecute a > war > etc. is either hopelessly naive, or a pack of lies.] > > Debbi But, well, Debbi, I do know lots of people who are that way. Most of them seem to oppose the war. And the behavior crops up a lot. For example, I think you made a rather snarky comment about how "our hands aren't clean" with regards to supporting Saddam. Now, that's true. But there's a huge difference between the fairly minor aid that we gave him, and the enormous support that he got from, say, France and Germany. So why the comment? If aide to Saddam disqualifies you from acting here, then it's not _us_ who bear the vast majority of the moral taint, is it? So that should sort of discredit the anti-war argument, doesn't it? But I don't see people making that argument much, and I don't see the anti-war folks troubled much by who they've lined themselves up with. The only consistency in their position is, in fact, who they're lined up _against_. That tells me something too. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
